AVIDA LAND CORPORATION VS. ATTY.

ARGOSINO
AC No. 7437 AUGUST 17, 2016
SERENO, CJ.

FACTS:
 Avida Land Corporation (AVIDA) entered into a Contract to Sell (CTS) with Rodman Construction & Development Corporation
(RODMAN) which was to acquire a subdivision house and lot located in Santo Rosa, Laguna through bank financing.
 In the event that such financing would be disapproved, Rodman was supposed to pay contract price of P4,412,254.00 less the
downpayment of 1,323,676.20 within 15 days from its receipt of the loan disapproval.
 After downpayment, Rodman took possession of the subject property.
 In 3 separate letters, Avida demanded that Rodman pay the outstanding balance of P3, 088,577.80.
 Both parties agreed that the amount be payed on deferred basis within 18 months.
 On March 1999, Rodman made a partial payment of P404,782.56.
 Consequently, Avida rescinded the CTS by notarial act and demanded Rodman to vacate the property.
 However, Rodman remained in possession of the property which prompted Avida to file an unlawful detainer case against
Rodman before the MTC of Makati.
 Subsequently, Rodman filed a complaint before House and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking the nullification of the
rescission of the CTS. Also, they prayed for the accounting of payments and the fixing of the period upon which the balance of
purchase price should be paid.
 MTC dismissed the unlawful detainer case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
 HLURB, through Atty. Aquino, similarly dismissed Rodman’s complaint and ordered it to pay damages and attorney’s fees.
 HLURB Board modified the arbiter’s ruling which ordered Rodman to immediately pay its outstanding balance which Avida shall
have the right to rescind the CTS subject to a refund all the sums paid less deduction as stipulated in the contract.
 Avida filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the HLURB Board’s decision wherein they questions the order to refund the sums
paid.
 Neither parties appealed therefor the judgment became final and executory.
 On January 17, 2007, HLURB Board issued an Order denying Rodman’s Motion for Reconsideration.
 It held that the computation of interest and penalties shall be dealt with in the executing proceedings before the Regional
Office.
 Instead of complying with the order, Atty Argosino filed a Motion:
o To Quash the Writ of Execution
o For Clarification
o To Set the Case for Conference
 The said motion created new issues and claims in the order.
 Also, Atty. Argosino filed a petition to cite Avida in contempt for issuing a demand letter to Rodman despite the pendency of
the Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution.
 Atty. Argosino then moved for the inhibition of Atty. Aquino as arbiter of the case and for setting of a hearing on the Petition to
Cite Complainant Contempt.
 On February 21, 2007, Steven Dy, vice president for project development, filed a complaint against Atty. Argosino for alleged
professional misconduct and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.:
o Rule 1.03- a laywer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s
cause.
o Canon 10- A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
o Rule 10.03- a layer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat die ends of justice.
o Canon 12- a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice.
o Rule 12.04- a lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.
 However, Atty. Argosino claimed that what caused the delays in the HLURB case were the legal blunders of Avida’s counsel:
o It took them a period of 6 months to file a Motion for Writ of Execution of the HLURB Board’s decision.
o The Motion for Writ of Execution was filed before the HLURB board, which as an appellate body had not jurisdiction.
o Also, Atty. Argosino raised the issue that Avida’s counsel acts of notarial rescission and filling before th trial court which
contributed to the delay of the case.
 Also, he argued that he merely followed his legal oath by defending the cause of his client with utmost dedication, diligence and
good faith.
 The court referred the case to the IBP for investigation.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Argosino is guilty of gross professional misconduct?

HELD/ RATIO: Yes.

 Despite the simple issue before the HLURB, Atty. Argosino deliberately attempted to delay the actual execution of the judgment
therein.
 He continued to file pleadings over issues already passed upon and made unfounded accusation of bias or procedural defects.
 These acts are considered a disregard to authority of a tribunal and abuse of court processes and detrimental of the
administration of justice.
 As a lawyer, Atty. Argosino indeed owes fidelity to the cause of his client and is expected to serve with competence and
diligence.
 However, professional rules impose limits on the lawyer’s zeal with necessary restrictions and qualifications.
 Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers are required to exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
 The code also obliges the lawyer to employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives.
 He made a mockery of judicial processes, disobeyed judicial orders, and caused unjust delays in the administration of justice.
 These acts violated:
o Rule 10.3- a lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice
o Rule 12.04- a lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of judgment or misuse court processes.
o Lawyer’s Oath by disobeying his sworn duty to “delay no man for money or malice”
 IBP guidelines similarly provide that “suspension is appropriate when lawyer knows that he is violating a court order or rule and
there is injury or potential injury to a client or party with legal proceedings.

SC DECISION:
SC held that Atty. Argosino is found guilty of violating Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Lawyer’s Oath for which he is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year effective upon the finality of this Resolution. He is
sternly warned that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.